“Seeing is believing” is an old saying. In the cinematic art, an important component of the experience is the knowledge that the viewer is watching a motion picture, rather than “real-life” experience as it actually occurs. Historically, motion blur was an artifact of film photography and production at 24 frames per second, but it helped smooth out the apparent transition between each frame and the next, and reduced the amount of overall detail. This reduced detail that was part of the cinematic experience. Today, however, digitally-photographed images or photochemical images on film, at a high frame rates (HFR) such as 48 frames per second, do not include the same amount of motion blur as seen in conventional movies at 24 frames per second. Instead, they often present a hyper-realistic appearance that approximates the “soap opera” look associated with live television. While it may be advantageous to present a motion picture that has a realistic appearance, too much realism in a presentation can detract from the experience of viewing a movie. The producer would prefer to deliver a product of the cinematic art, rather than an experience that replicates the “soap opera” look of live television at all times. In the practice of the invention, this can be accomplished on a scene-by-scene basis, either through photography or post-production. It can also be accomplished frame-by-frame, or at the level of treating specific components of images, during post-production.
With the advent of HFR photography and projection, the appearance of a theatrical motion picture can approach that presented on live television in real time, especially as frame rate increases and projected images look less cinematic and more lifelike. Viewers must “suspend disbelief” to some extent in order to enjoy any cinematic experience. However, the more realistic an image appears, the more difficult it is to execute the suspension of disbelief that is essential to the optimal enjoyment of a motion picture experience. With the use of higher frame rates for photography and presentation, there is greater clarity than at 24 frames per second, but there is so much detail in some scenes that the increased clarity can work against the experience by distracting the audience away from the story line. In the practice of this invention, the amount of realism can become variable, under the control of the producer, who can use it as a creative tool. With this invention, it is now possible to modulate the amount of realism that an audience perceives at any time during the showing of a motion picture, which brings it under the control of the producer in a manner that has not been accomplished before.
Suspension of disbelief is an integral part of the moviegoing experience. The combination of the limitations of film photography, particularly at the conventional frame rate of 24 frames per second, induces the viewer to believe that, because he or she is watching a motion picture, the action portrayed could possibly occur; although the viewer knows that it did not necessarily happen in actuality. Enjoying a motion picture is a conditioned experience, and it is the producer's task to deliver an experience to the audience that reminds them that the action they see is not an event that is happening now. It could be a fantasy or a historic event, but it is not happening at the moment they are viewing the motion picture. The invention described here furthers this goal. With contemporary acquisition methods, a producer is no longer saddled with artifacts that heretofore had to be accepted. Now, with higher frame rates, there are expanded creative opportunities, and this invention allows those opportunities to be fulfilled. The present invention improves spatial and temporal resolution, while providing creative flexibility by allowing an artifact of 24-frame-per-second photography and exhibition to be modulated in motion pictures photographed and exhibited at high frame rates.
Throughout the Twentieth Century, advances in cinema technology have contributed to making theatrical feature film presentation more lifelike. Cinerama, introduced in 1952, delivered an immersive impression not seen before. One of the factors was the use of a new frame rate; 26 frames-per-second. Later, the Todd-AO 70 mm system captured and projected images at 30 frames per second and produced a noticeable improvement in perceived realism. Showscan, at 60 frames per second, mitigated the artifacts of 24-frame-per-second presentation even more, with a significantly higher frame rate, but its use was limited to special-venue applications.
Filmmakers learned early in the development of the medium that too much realism was not desirable, however. An early Edison film of a train coming toward the camera, photographed at 48 frames-per-second, scared that audience. They were afraid that the train on the screen would run over them.
While contemporary audiences in motion picture theaters are more sophisticated than that, the negative effects of an inordinately realistic presentation have been highlighted by the recent release of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey at 48 frames-per-second and in 3D, the first commercial motion picture released at that frame rate. Technical reviews of the picture in industry trade publications were not enthusiastic, because of the overly realistic presentation. Based on a ten-minute preview screened at 48 frames-per-second, Jim Vejvoda, Executive Editor of IGN Movies, said on www.ign.com on Apr. 24, 2012: “In this reporter's opinion, it looks like live television in hi-def video. And it didn't look particularly good. Yes, this is shocking, but I was actually let down by the Hobbit footage, as were a number of the other journalists I spoke with afterward . . . . While 48 fps may create a more realistic ‘you are there’ picture quality, it actually works against The Hobbit from the 10 minutes of footage we saw. This undeniable ‘reality’ kept pulling me out of the movie rather than immersing me fully into its world.” Peter Scieretta posted on www.slashfilm.com on the same day that the character-centric scenes at 48-fps appeared “jarring” and added “It looked uncompromisingly real—so much so that it looked fake.”
If the opinions of industry commentators are any indication of the potential impact of motion pictures released at 48 frames-per-second, the problem which the present invention solves could cause high-frame-rate motion pictures generally to fail in their objective of providing an improved experience for contemporary moviegoers. While undesirable artifacts will always detract from the enjoyment of a cinema experience, there are other cues that remind viewers that they are watching a motion picture, and not a television program. By introducing a controlled amount of an otherwise-undesirable artifact, the present invention moves the theatrical motion picture experience away from the hyper-realistic look that prompted negative reviews of The Hobbit. That controlled “artifact” is motion blur, which can be added, even at high frame rates, in the practice of this invention. The purpose of selectively blurring motion is to reduce the level of detail inherent in rapid motion, which can interfere with the advancement of the story line of a motion picture, by absorbing the audience with superfluous visual detail to the extent that they fail to notice other image components which are vital to advancing the action.
The invention described here optimizes theatrical motion picture realism by bringing the impression of reality the highest possible level, without going so far as to deliver the “soap opera” look; the appearance associated with live television, which can be distracting. The term came from the early days of television, when soap operas were broadcast live, and U.S. television used 30 frames and 60 interlaced fields (other countries had similar interlaced transmission methods). In the U.S., this meant that 60 fields were presented to viewers every second, while only 24 frames are displayed in motion picture theaters. Compared to traditional motion pictures, television appears significantly more realistic. This hyper-realism is similar to the experience which the viewers of The Hobbit had. In other words, the practice of the present invention retains a certain level of cinematic appearance and avoids this distraction, while still delivering a superior quality motion picture presentation. This is accomplished by imparting an optimal amount of motion blur, which was historically considered an artifact of film photography and presentation at the conventional frame rate of 24 frames per second.
Much of the history of the development of motion picture technology has been driven by the desire to improve the perception of realism and clarity of the presentation viewed by motion picture audiences. This has been an object of all inventions that featured higher frame rates, larger film formats, larger screens and digital image capture and presentation methods. The inventor here has also taught such methods to improve cinematic motion picture presentation: e.g. Weisgerber: U.S. Pat. No. 5,627,614 (presentation at forty-eight frames per second of film sequences photographed at that rate or at the conventional rate of twenty-four frames per second and double-frame printed).
The previous Weisgerber invention is one of many that improved the quality of motion picture presentation over the course of the last Century. With digital cinematography, producers now have the ability to vary shutter speed or shutter angle without being restricted by film transport requirements. With conventional film transports, the shutter could only be opened to a limited degree with a typical motion picture film camera. The conventional frame rate of 24 frames per second was equivalent to a 180° shutter angle, while 48 frames per second was equivalent to a 90° shutter angle. These limitations are not present in digital photography, so motion blur is now variable, under the control of the producer. With digital photography, it is possible to vary the shutter from essentially fully open to essentially fully closed. In other words, it is possible to vary the shutter speed to the equivalent of any shutter angle, because there is essentially no blanking time, which was required to move the film between frames. Motion blur, the cinematic artifact that prompts the viewers to suspend disbelief, is not present with digital photography at a high frame rate. Without it, a motion picture looks too much like live television, and not enough like the product of cinematic art. The present invention imparts motion blur selectively when desired for a cinematic look, while retaining the capacity to employ the enhanced image quality available through digital HFR photography when highly-realistic, immersive images are desired. In other words, the primary object of the invention described here is to produce enhanced images, but not so realistic that they provide a level of detail which would detract from the viewer's movie-going experience.
A part of the cinema art is the presentation of images which incorporate “artifacts” that are a component of 24 frame-per-second film presentation, and that remind the viewers that they are, indeed, watching a film. Some of these artifacts, especially motion blur, are associated with the conventional frame rate of 24 frames per second. This delivers the “cinematic” look associated with “legacy” motion pictures, which is considered part of the experience of watching a film in a theatrical setting. This motion blur is accepted by the moviegoing public, and is not viewed as a disturbing phenomenon. In fact, motion blur is a natural phenomenon; a part of the actual visual experience, in real life.
High-frame-rate image capture and presentation methods suppress artifacts associated with a “cinematic” appearance or “legacy” look to the extent that viewers cannot perceive them. Presentation of forty-eight discrete images per second, as taught previously by Weisgerber in U.S. Pat. No. 5,627,614 suppresses these artifacts associated with a low frame rate. While an enhanced presentation is generally desirable for motion pictures as a whole, it is not desirable that all content be enhanced to such a high standard that a motion picture loses all of its cinematic appearance. This invention gives the producer the creative option to decide how realistic, or how hyper-realistic, any segment of motion picture content should appear. For example, a close-up of a character's face in sharp focus can present too much detail to deliver a pleasing image to the viewer, when displayed on a large screen. The smoothness of motion available at high frame rates of presentation actually detracts from the viewer's experience, in that case. In another example, contemporary image-capture methods produce sufficient depth of field that the entire image is in sharp focus. This is a desirable feature when the background is a scenic outdoor vista or during an action scene, but it is not desirable for an indoor scene where the characters are engaging in a serious conversation and the dialog is more important than the visual information. In such scenes, it is esthetically desirable to keep the characters in focus and bring the background slightly out of focus; a result that cannot be achieved with current digital photography. By adding a controlled amount of motion blur, a producer can create these desirable effects by reducing the amount of excessive detail in moving objects. In those cases, it is necessary to impart an artifact in post-production to selected scenes, despite the fact that artifact may otherwise be considered undesirable. The present invention can mitigate hyper-realism by blurring excess detail, which prevents such detail from distracting the viewers of a motion picture. In effect, motion pictures produced according to this invention can have the “legacy” look of a classic film, a highly-realistic look, or anything in between. In addition, the amount of realism that is delivered to an audience in a motion picture theater can now be varied, under the control of the producer of the motion picture.
The effect produced in the practice of this invention would be especially noticeable on today's large screens, where viewers can see more detail than they could on screens typically used in the past. The invention described here has been installed for demonstration purposes in a commercial motion picture theater with a 60-foot screen. Other theaters have screens up to 90 feet wide. In venues such as these, contemporary audiences can easily discern the difference between a cinematic appearance, as opposed to that of a television broadcast of an event as it takes place.
As the motion picture industry begins to embrace 48 frames-per-second or higher as frame rates for photography and exhibition of new motion pictures, this drawback of high-frame-rate exhibition is becoming apparent. The recent release of Peter Jackson's version of The Hobbit: An Unexpected journey at 48 frames-per-second and in 3D, is a case in point. On Apr. 28, 2012, before The Hobbit was released and only portions of it were screened in previews, Anthony Wing Kosner wrote in Forbes Magazine that “If the frame rate turns out to be a major point of criticism, it will not be a good sign.” After the picture was released and viewers' reactions were noted, Ben Fritz reported in the Los Angeles Times on Dec. 7, 2012 that some viewers “have complained, saying that it is too realistic, making ‘The Hobbit’ seem less like a film and more like something you might see on a high-definition TV or on a video game.” Fritz also reported that the trade paper Variety said it was “like watching a high-end home movie.”
These differences are critical, as the experience with the release of The Hobbit demonstrated. While there was no dispute that the 48-fps frame rate delivers a highly realistic appearance, audiences and reviewers did not always give positive reviews to that aspect of the production. The subject matter of the motion picture came from the fantasy novels of J. R. R. Tolkein. The extreme appearance of reality in the motion picture as presented did not comport with the audience expectation of a motion picture with a story line based on fantasy.
Fritz quoted Avatar producer Joe Landau as referring to new tools like the 48-fps frame rate and saying: “It's about learning how to take these new tools and still give a cinematic look and feel” to viewers watching motion pictures in these new formats and frame rates. The invention described here solves that specific problem. The invention can take the overly-realistic scenes or shots at 48 frames-per-second and give them a more “cinematic” appearance, which tones down the hyper-realism that audiences saw in The Hobbit and that was the object of the complaints quoted here.
It is not the object of this invention to give the appearance of 24-frame-per-second photography for an entire motion picture. Instead, the method described here is used selectively, only to temper the excessive appearance of detail in motion that can result from the temporal resolution inherent at high frame rates, such as 48 frames-per-second, and is inconsistent with a traditional cinematic appearance. Many of the benefits of HFR photography and exhibition, such as a high level of spatial resolution and the ability to employ large screens with minimized artifacts, are desirable. The method described here is used selectively, only to temper an undesirable effect that sometimes occurs with high temporal resolution (an appearance similar to live television; “soap-opera look”), especially on shots containing action occurring in the foreground or at medium-range.
By selectively adding motion blur to a motion picture that was photographed by digital means at a high frame rate like 48 frames-per-second, the present invention produces an optimal experience; more realistic than conventional film photography can produce, yet not as realistic-looking as live television or the appearance of The Hobbit. Thus, the present invention retains an important feature of the cinema experience, while increasing realism to the optimal level, but not beyond it. In this way, “suspension of disbelief” by the viewers of motion pictures produced according to this invention becomes a variable, which is now brought under the control of the producer of the motion picture and harnessed for the improvement of the movie-going experience.